HC declines to separate live-in teen couple

| | Kochi

In a landmark judgement, the Kerala High Court on Friday declined to separate an 18-year-old boy and a 19-year-old girl who were in a live-in relationship saying it could not close its eyes to the fact that such relationships had become widespread in society. Both the boy and the girl are Muslims hailing from Alappuzha district.

Dismissing a habeas corpus petition submitted by the girl’s father, Muhammad Riyad of Alappuzha, a division bench comprising Justices V Chitambaresh and KP Jyothindranath allowed her to continue living with the boy saying that she had stayed with him for quite some time and that she was an adult.

The court pronounced the order in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling that adults had the right to be in a live-in relationship even if they had not attained the age for legal marriage. It said it could not close its eyes to the fact that live-in relationships had become rampant in society and such partners could not be separated by a habeas corpus writ provided they were adults.

The court was bound to respect the unfettered right of a major to have a live-in relationship even though the same might not be acceptable to the orthodox sections of the society, it said. The judges also held that the girl was free to live with the boy or marry him legally at a later stage when she attained the marriageable age.

The girl’s father, who sought directive to police to produce his daughter who he said is being detained by the boy, said he is willing to allow her to go with the boy after a legally valid marriage but not for a live-in relationship. He also submitted that she was not yet 21 and hence was a child as defined under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

He also said there could be no legal marriage between the two teenagers. However, the court pointed out that they were already in a live-in relationship and were practically living as husband and life though they were not married legally.

It reportedly said she was already an adult and had the right to marry under the provisions of the Act.